Dodgers Re-Sign Kenley Jansen

Kenley Jansen has spent his entire career with the Dodgers, and he won’t be leaving anytime soon. The Dodgers on Tuesday announced that they’ve re-signed Jansen to a five-year contract, which is reportedly worth $80MM and allows Jansen to opt out after the 2019 season. The 29-year-old Jansen is represented by Wasserman.

Jansen will reportedly receive a $4MM signing bonus and earn salaries of $10MM in 2017-18, $18MM in 2019-20, and $20MM in 2021. His contract doesn’t have a no-trade clause, but he’ll reportedly take home a $1MM assignment bonus each time he’s traded. Based on that breakdown, Jansen will need to choose between two years and $41MM from the Dodgers or again testing the open market when his opt-out date arrives. Notably, the new collective bargaining agreement stipulates that he won’t be able to receive a second qualifying offer, so he’d be able to test the market free of draft-pick compensation in advance of his age-32 season.

Jansen’s new agreement comes on the heels of what was arguably the best season of his excellent career. In 68 2/3 regular-season innings, the Curacao native notched a career-best 1.83 ERA with 13.6 K/9, 1.4 BB/9 and a 30 percent ground-ball rate to go along with a career-best 47 saves. That performance earned him his first All-Star berth, though how he’d gone five full seasons without an All-Star appearance is a mystery. Jansen has, after all, compiled a 2.20 ERA with 13.9 K/9 against 2.6 BB/9 in 408 2/3 innings in the regular season over the life of his career. He’s never posted an ERA higher than 2.85 in any season, and even that mark came back in 2011. Since that time, his control has improved remarkably, and his ERA numbers have dipped accordingly. Dating back to 2010, Jansen ranks third among all qualified relievers in total strikeouts, fourth in strikeout percentage and seventh in earned run average.

Jansen entered the winter as one of the market’s premium free agents and drew significant interest from the Yankees (who instead re-signed Aroldis Chapman), Nationals and Marlins — the latter of whom reportedly made an offer to Jansen that was greater than the five-year, $80MM pact to which he has agreed with the Dodgers. (It’s not known whether the Marlins’ offer included any sort of opt-out clause or deferred money, however.)

Similarly, the Nationals offered a larger guarantee, agent Adam Katz explained to Joel Sherman of the New York Post (alllinks to Sherman on Twitter). Said Katz: “The Nationals’ presentation was exceptional and generous and for more money. They conducted recruitment of this player in a high caliber professional way. Kenley and I were very impressed. At the end of the day Kenley loves Los Angeles, his Dodger family, the fans here and although money was a factor, it wasn’t the most important thing.”

Of course, it must be noted that Barry Svrluga of the Washington Post reported (on Twitter) that Washington’s offer included deferred money. That could very well have brought the present-day value of the deal south of $80MM, and there’s been no word that the Nats were willing to include an opt-out in the deal, either (and such clauses add significant value to the deal as well, as MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz explained when attempting to monetize opt-out clauses last winter). As such, while the Nationals’ offer may have been for more money on paper, the overall value of the proposal could’ve been lower than the Dodgers’ offer.

All of that is largely moot now, though, as Jansen join Rich Hill (three years, $48MM) and Justin Turner(four years, $64MM) back in Los Angeles. That trio comprised the Dodgers’ top three offseason targets, and though it cost the club just shy of $200MM, that expenditure will net president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman, GM Farhan Zaidi and the rest of the Dodgers’ front-office staff three of the winter’s top open-market talents. Adding Jansen’s contract to the long-term ledger pushes the Dodgers’ 2017 payroll up to a projected $226.67MM (via Jason Martinez of MLBTR/Roster Resource).

The Dodgers are known to be working to decrease their payroll, which may seem counter-intuitive after they’ve spent nearly $200MM on their top three free agents. However, the Dodgers will also see their commitments to Alex Guerrero and Carl Crawford (roughly $28MM combined) come off the books next winter, at which point they can also buy out the mutual option on Andre Ethier’s contract. A year later, they’ll see Adrian Gonzalez, Scott Kazmir, Hyun-jin Ryu and Brandon McCarthy each come off the books as well, creating further opportunity to trim down the payroll. And, with a number of young in-house options both on the roster (Corey Seager, Julio Urias, Joc Pederson) and rising through the farm (Cody Bellinger, Jose De Leon, Yadier Alvarez, Alex Verdugo, among others), they could eventually field a roster that is built more on homegrown talent than through free-agent spending, as recent iterations of their roster have been.

FOX’s Ken Rosenthal first reported that the Dodgers and Jansen were closing in on a deal. Jim Bowden of ESPN and MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM reported that the agreement and the terms (Twitter link). Yahoo’s Tim Brown reported the inclusion of the opt-out clause (on Twitter). Rosenthal tweeted that the deal doesn’t include a no-trade clause but does come with an assignment bonus in the event of a trade. FanRag’s Jon Heyman reported the financial breakdown of the deal (Twitterlinks).

And that’s a good thing for the Marlins. Only Loria may be salty, and that’s always a good thing. True, giants shouldn’t be that upset b/c they got their guy, but they also were pretty close to not having to deal with Jansen anymore…so I guess if anything, it would be a nationals logo

MLBTR had an article saying that the Dodgers will owe at least $200MM annually (to their players) for the next two years. With this signing and what appears to be Turner, yeah… that’s going to be a monster luxury tax.

Yes they do!! As well the Red Suxx, Cubbies, Yanks, and nearly ALL MLB and NFL teams!! All owned by Billionaires fighting with Millionaires!! Luxury tax means NOTHING to Dodgers!! Or Yankees for that matter.. read further along,a lot of those bad contracts will be gone soon

Adding to the payroll doesn’t mean they are adding to the debt especially when they have so many contracts coming off the book these next two years. Also Rob Manfred said the Dodgers aren’t in any trouble concerning there debt most of those rumors came from a la times article

It’s just you. Teams are often in and out of debt for various reasons. The new ownership inherited debt. Their issue with MLB’s regulations is not about having debt, it is about servicing that debt. Essentially there can’t just be a revolving door of different debts to cover debts to cover debts. They’re working on a sustainable financial plan to pay it down, so there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to sign players.

Stop it’s not the debt it’s the debt calculator. Dodgers skewed it on one time expenses international free agents and stadium improvements. They have a huge tv contract that is shaving the debt. Not to mention they pack the stadium.

dam 16 million for turner and jansen. What a steal for the Dodgers. Remember free agents with the same contract= Chapman,Fowler, Melancon. Give me any of the those dodgers over the three guys i listed.

The Jansen deal alone is an AAV of 16 million, so how are you getting that they are getting both players for the same money? I agree if you mean that they are both going to receive 16mil/yr which somes to a 32mil/yr hit for the Dodgers…

jansen got 5 years 80 million, Turner got 4 years 64 million. That’s 16 million AAV for both. Money is not an issue to Dodger fans because next year they get 35 million off(Eithier, Crawford, Guerrero) the books and 50 million off in 2 years(Gonzalez, kazmir, Mccarthy)

Signing Jansen, soon going to sign Turner? It’s a good day! Jansen at $15 million AAV isn’t half bad. Turner at $16 million AAV is great, especially with deferred money (per the reports). And Hill for $16 million AAV is also good value. We’ve been able to retain all three our target free agents for less than $50 million. That’s great value if you ask me. I thought for sure it would take closer to $60 million to retain all three.

They should all be sending Christmas baskets to Andrew Miller thanking him for his performance in the playoffs and the effect it had on the free agent market (although it should have had a similar effect when the Royals rode a bullpen to 2 straight WS appearances).

I did not see this coming at all! I thought he was a goner. I can’t lie either..I was okay with letting him go and wanted to sign Turner more than Jansen. Not that I didn’t want him back but I just figured if there was only one of the two we could sign I’d rather have been it Turner but I am pretty stoked right now!! Im kind of in shock actually lol I was just waiting to get he notification on my phone that he had signed with the Marlins. Good job, Dodgers! Welcome back, Jansen!

I hope this doesn’t mean we can’t bring back Turner, I heard we were close to a deal to bring him back for four years and I hope that’s still the case. Let’s get it done Dodgers! Bringing back Hill, Turner and Jansen are all big moves and I’m stoked!

After the winter meetings with the news hanging in the air that the Marlins had made him a solid offer it seemed like almost a foregone conclusion. Then the story went quiet for several days so it felt like other gears were turning. Conspicuously missing from this discussion are all the commenters who said the Dodgers were better off without Jansen at anything like the price he was bound to get from somebody.

That seems a bit disingenuous. I don’t think any of us who weren’t sobbing on the message boards that Jansen might leave are disappointed to see him re-sign. The Dodgers are undoubtedly a better team the next two years with Jansen, but thinking those last two years will be worth it is hard to say. The best long-term contract for a reliever from a team’s perspective was probably Papelbon and that didn’t end well at all. Let’s just hope Jansen’s cutter ages like Rivera’s.

Your own words: “As a Dodgers fan I feel fine watching Jansen walk at that price.”

We all knew he was going to sign at that price. The only question was whether it would be paid by the Dodgers or somebody else.

I’m not trying to throw your words back in your face, but there was never much defense for the purely financial argument, which basically came down to addition by subtraction. Lots of people were making that argument. It was always a baseball-second argument. Fortunately, the Dodgers’ FO saw it that way too.

I think saying that I would be fine with him walking is different than saying we’re better off w/o him. I’ll agree that it is a baseball-second argument at the moment, but it could seriously hamper efforts to sign free agents several years down the road. And at the end of the day, there’s only so much we as fans are aware of. I trust the FO and if this fits in their long-term plan, then I’m good with it.

Fair enough, but this is why I steer clear of financial arguments. They are all about pondering the imponderable. All we really know even roughly is the team’s payroll and revenue and little to nothing about their internal financials. So pretty much everything else is guesswork, and it’s about money (boring) instead of the game (interesting). For the game, the Dodgers clearly needed to sign Jansen, Turner and Hill, or the team is inarguably weaker. They do that and I am a happy camper. Let them count the beans. All I want is winning LA baseball.

Well, I’m a bean counter… Agreed resigning that trio makes them better. Full year of Ethier, Urias, and Kersh (hopefully) makes up for no new players. Wouldn’t mind signing another solid relief arm. Imagine you’re in agreement.

Absolutely. This is where it makes sense for them to take a flier on Holland, ideally on a minor league contract with a spring trading invite. Still holding out some hope they can figure out a trade to send Puig to Milwaukee for Braun and to finagle Dozier somehow.

The contracts are likely to be backloaded, the way the Nationals did with Scherzer and Strasburg. The league required the Dodgers to submit a 5 year plan on its debt. They did, and league was okay with it.

It does as far as their debt level is concerned. Back loading the contracts allows them to maintain the current debt level at a lower ceiling hopefully making the difference up with expiring contracts in the coming years.

I read the technical description of the debt service rule and though it is loaded with accounting jargon, I am pretty certain that AAV is used to calculate the ratio of revenue to debt, presumably to prevent this very trick from being used.

A lot of stars have to align to make the World Series, and even more so to win it. But your point is one that is often overlooked. Jansen is about as good as they come. Now he is getting paid roughly $1/4 million per inning he pitches. And the team is no better off than they were at the end of the season. It’s been discussed on other threads, that one player can’t make or break a team (Trout was used as an example) like they can in basketball. But the Dodgers are better off with Jansen then they are without him. So can’t blame them for signing one of the best closers in baseball.

To say they are “no better” assumes all their younger players (seager, urias, pederson, barnes, etc.) won’t be better, and that they’ll suffer the same injuries to their pitching staff that they did last year. Plus, don’t be surprised if they land a huge upgrade at second base before the new season starts.

Frankly, whoever needs it, I hope they’ll give Hahn a call. Guys like Robertson, Jones, heck, even Abreu and Frazier will simply be wasting good years here. Sell it all, in my opinion. The White Sox brass have avoided a re-build for decades. They finally started a real one, I feel they should go all-in on it and not try and dilly-dally.

We really need to acquire a righty-hitting second baseman IMO. Hoping that we work something out for Dozier or Kinsler, but even if it’s something more under-the-radar, I’m hoping for a righty. And not an internal option.

This Dodger FO made the right call! The decision to not re-sign Greinke last year was also the right call. The AF had other options last year and he made it work. The Dodger starting pitching was excellent last year. Moreover, IF AF had signed Greinke last year, even on the terms he offered, I doubt they would have been able to retain KJ, certainly not KJ, JT and Hill.

However, in KJ’s case, the LAD needed to make an exception and pay him. The Dodgers have NO back up and they would have been chasing after a closer all year. After seeing what Chappie and Melancon got, the Dodgers got the best deal–by far!!. SF is paying Melancon $62 m for 4 years and the LAD got KJ for 5 and $80 m. An argument can be made that KJ was the best closer option this year and the Dodgers got him for less than what the Yanks paid Chappie. The Giants clearly overpaid for Melancon.

I disagree. 18 million for one more year is not a huge deal for the team. Melancon has been just as good as Chapman and Jensen and while he does not have the ceiling of the o other two he is a lot cheaper, and less risky. Nats, Marlins plus others are now in need of a closer, Giants paid what was fair in this market.

This move keeps them in play with the Cubs, Nats, Giants, Mets, and Cardinals for one of the five playoff spots. Losing Jansen – and presumably Turner given the aforementioned debt situation – would’ve made it tough for them to contend against those five teams.

For this team to contend with the Cubs in the playoffs, though, they’ll need Hill to be healthy in October (50/50 shot since he’ll be injured at some point) and for two of either Urias, Maeda, or DeLeon to take that next step and be above average starters into October.

Imo, even with Jansen, this team can’t rely too much on their pen to beat the Cubs. That team adjusts as well – or better – than any team in the league. Not many starters can shut them down twice in a row (see Kershaw) and not many relievers can shut them down more than twice (see Andrew Miller.) They eventually get to everyone. So it’s important to throw out as many good starting pitchers as possible to get the Dodgers to late-game situations with the lead. A tired Maeda and Urias really hurt he Dodgers badly in the NLCS.

The Dodgers had to lock up some of these guys. That said, the Dodgers just spent $193M (assuming no opt outs) on quite a few decling age seasons. K $ are always progressing, but I would be reluctant to shell out that kind of coin for age 32 + 33 seasons for Jansen, age 34 + 35 seasons for Turner and age 37 + 38 + 39 seasons for Hill. Factoring in decline, projected injury, etc at current $/WAR I suspect the Dodgers will not receive surplus value on any of these ks.

I don’t get it. Turner has played all of 5 games in the outfield, in his entire professional career. Just 1 of them in the Majors. He’s a plus defender at 3B, and you want to move him off there to plug in a guy coming off a .300 OBP season? While giving up the prospects you have left after already giving up a haul to get Dozier?

Nats offered KJ $5 million more than Dodgers; but Kenley chose the Dodgers because he “loves LA, his Dodger family, the fans here and although money was a factor, it wasn’t the most important thing”.

This wouldn’t have happened a year ago. Dave Roberts has created an atmosphere in that clubhouse and a camaraderie among the players that is now very special. The guys in that clubhouse want to play for DR and they want to be in LA for reasons other than the money.

Jansen came up with the Dodgers. Of course he’d want to stay if the prices elsewhere aren’t marginally different than what the Dodgers offered. Not sure it’s a clubhouse vibe thing or more that he just knows exactly what he’s getting with the Dodgers and doesn’t need to make a huge move to the east coast or elsewhere. The Nats offered deferred salary because of the MASN deal, and the Marlins aren’t that close to competing. So it turned into a near no-brainer for him to return.

The others evidently also didn’t offer an opt-out. We’ve seen how valuable and highly prized that item is for players. He potentially gets more in the future by giving up a bit on the front end. You could perform a present-value calculation on those terms, and probably agents do that very thing for their clients.

I mean….i get keeping your own free agents and all…but why keep things status quo when it wasnt good enough in the 1st place?? I know teams have injuries and a bounce back in health is able to be expexted…but for a team with a payroll in excess of $200 million…and no world series appearance with rhe current core…im confused as to why a little shake up wasnt in order….
I can say the same thing being a Mets fan…but the core has proven it has the chops to reach the World Series…..costs 30% less, and the health was the only major drawback…and we still made the post season as a wild card

Thing is, these players were more the reason they made it that far as opposed to the ones who led their playoff ousting. They have a lot of money coming off the books over the next few years, so the financial impact here won’t be too much of a factor.

Agree. I’m sure they wish that some of their impressive depth was lined up behind KJ or JT and they could have picked up a supplemental first rounder or two and saved having to make these two deals. I am pleased they realized that these two contracts were necessary to avoid being in a position of weakness going into the year and being forced to overpay with prospects to acquire guys not as productive as these two players.

I’m excited to see which of the young players that we’ve held on to will significantly step forward and contribute next year. I think it’s a good bet that one or more of Urias, JDL, Barnes, Stewart, Stripling, Toles, Thompson….maybe even Bellinger will emerge.

I think that’s entirely unfair because this core is different than what people realize. Long gone are the days where Kemp and Ethier were main cogs. Long gone are the days where you could count on Kersh, Grienke an Ryu to make the pretty deep 1-3. This I could argue is a completely different core. In part we’ve seen Pederson, Seager, and Turner grow up in front of eyes. The Dodgers also saw Urias grow up last year. They also saw some unexpected contributions from Toles and Thompson who look like legit big leaguers maybe not stars but much needed youth infusion. With the 50M of dead money, this is a different team that’s not to far off. Same things could be said about this team health permitted. But I could say that the injuries they dealt with and unexpected guys that stepped in, this base deserves another run before transitioning. As of right now Bellinger,DeLeon,Calhoun, and Verdugo are all a plain trip away. If they can address a 2b and setup guy I’d say they are in good shape. They’ll also be watching 100M of mostly dead money fall off their payroll in next two years. Simply put shaking it up is likely to also happen as some guys will be shipped out as the young guys continue to fill slots.

Nationals should be having trade talks with the Yankees involving Bryce Harper. They have the pieces to make the Nationals WS Champs now. Betances, Sanchez, a couple of top prospects and/or MLB ready players.

Move Eaton to right then go get Cutch or better yet Kiermaier from the Rays.

You should always be exploring ways to improve. That said, the Nationals are on the part of the win curve where squeezing as much production out each position is paramount. Trading for a haul of young players and prospects doesn’t help them.

The opt-out clause might not have a dollar sign in front if it, but it has real value to the player. I mean, don’t we keep hearing about how dumb it is for teams to offer them? So in the end the offers he got from the Dodgers, Marlins and Nationals might have been valued very closely, so the talk about Jansen giving the Dodgers a hometown discount are pretty much window dressing. His narrative about feeling being hurt when they went after Chapman always seemed bogus though.

Yeah that is very true. Perhaps we’re getting to the point where the market can start quantifying the value of these opt-outs, who knows just how much people are over and under-valuing it. It definitely has to be part of what made or broke the deal for Jansen.

You can bet they have spreadsheets and charts for all of these calculations. Way too money at stake for them to assess these values any other way. I’m pretty sure player agents also have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients so you can be sure they go over the financial implications of every option they have in detail.

If there is an opt out after 3 years, the Dodgers need to spend the next 3 years grooming his replacement from within. Unless Jansen gets injured or his performance tanks, this should be considered a 3-year contract.

Also like why don’t gms make moves like this. Redsox have Kimbrel
Making 12 mil a year, when closers trade value is very high. Why not have signed chapman to a 17.5 mil AAV over 5 seasons, added a sixth year vesting option and 3 year opt out. Then trade Kimbrel and pomeranz for a boat load of prospects. Because pomeranz is going to make like 2.5 mil and Kimbrel 12 mil. In essence you probably force your rival to overpay for Jansen and lose the 17th pick, but you basically pay 3 mil more per year to get a boatload of prospects.

LMAO at payroll projections. Dodgers were at $204.1 million BEFORE signing Hill. So add $16 million AAV, then add $16 million for Jansen, then add $16 million for Turner and add it up. $252.1 million. Then add 50% luxury tax for the $57.1 million they are over since 2017 will be the Dodgers 5th straight year over the threshold. Then add a 42% surcharge . Its ugly.